Moderator: Moderators
Postby PYoungbaer » Apr 26, 2010 4:30 pm
The USGS National Wildlife Health Center today posted the following revised and very detailed classification system for White Nose Syndrome detection:
http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_inform ... itions.jsp
As an example, the latest reports from Missouri and Great Smoky Mountain National Park sites are currently considered “presumptive positive” for WNS because the fungus was visible on the skin of bats and was confirmed by a molecular test (PCR), but there was no microscopic evidence of clinical fungal infection in the bats examined.
The case definitions that the NWHC uses to diagnose WNS include clinical signs associated with WNS, detection of Geomyces destructans by PCR and/or culture, and confirmation of WNS by histopathology
Similarly, a new sophistication has developed for caves and mines.
Personally, while this is probably extremely helpful to scientists, for the lay person it basically means the bats show signs, but aren't necessarily sick (yet). For the media, unfortunately, I suspect they are unlikely to convey the nuanced differences to the public of "presumptive positive" and "confirmed." Wildlife managers are already demonstrating that they treat "presumptive positive" and "confirmed" the same.
PYoungbaer wrote:Claude,
Here's the ProMed posting on the Oklahoma bat and its testing by the NWHC lab in Madison:
http://www.promedmail.org/pls/otn/f?p=2400:1001:57555::NO::F2400_P1001_BACK_PAGE,F2400_P1001_PUB_MAIL_ID:1000,82782
As the testing has become more sophisticated, the USGS has developed a more nuanced categorization (as announced here on Cave Chat April 26:Postby PYoungbaer » Apr 26, 2010 4:30 pm
The USGS National Wildlife Health Center today posted the following revised and very detailed classification system for White Nose Syndrome detection:
http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_inform ... itions.jsp
As an example, the latest reports from Missouri and Great Smoky Mountain National Park sites are currently considered “presumptive positive” for WNS because the fungus was visible on the skin of bats and was confirmed by a molecular test (PCR), but there was no microscopic evidence of clinical fungal infection in the bats examined.
The case definitions that the NWHC uses to diagnose WNS include clinical signs associated with WNS, detection of Geomyces destructans by PCR and/or culture, and confirmation of WNS by histopathology
Similarly, a new sophistication has developed for caves and mines.
Personally, while this is probably extremely helpful to scientists, for the lay person it basically means the bats show signs, but aren't necessarily sick (yet). For the media, unfortunately, I suspect they are unlikely to convey the nuanced differences to the public of "presumptive positive" and "confirmed." Wildlife managers are already demonstrating that they treat "presumptive positive" and "confirmed" the same.
PYoungbaer wrote:Claude,
Here's the ProMed posting on the Oklahoma bat and its testing by the NWHC lab in Madison:
http://www.promedmail.org/pls/otn/f?p=2400:1001:57555::NO::F2400_P1001_BACK_PAGE,F2400_P1001_PUB_MAIL_ID:1000,82782
As the testing has become more sophisticated, the USGS has developed a more nuanced categorization (as announced here on Cave Chat April 26:Postby PYoungbaer » Apr 26, 2010 4:30 pm
The USGS National Wildlife Health Center today posted the following revised and very detailed classification system for White Nose Syndrome detection:
http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_inform ... itions.jsp
As an example, the latest reports from Missouri and Great Smoky Mountain National Park sites are currently considered “presumptive positive” for WNS because the fungus was visible on the skin of bats and was confirmed by a molecular test (PCR), but there was no microscopic evidence of clinical fungal infection in the bats examined.
The case definitions that the NWHC uses to diagnose WNS include clinical signs associated with WNS, detection of Geomyces destructans by PCR and/or culture, and confirmation of WNS by histopathology
Similarly, a new sophistication has developed for caves and mines.
Personally, while this is probably extremely helpful to scientists, for the lay person it basically means the bats show signs, but aren't necessarily sick (yet). For the media, unfortunately, I suspect they are unlikely to convey the nuanced differences to the public of "presumptive positive" and "confirmed." Wildlife managers are already demonstrating that they treat "presumptive positive" and "confirmed" the same.
Claude Koch wrote:Hi Peter,
It would seem to me that the 2 caves that were reported in Oklahoma and Missouri, that seem to be somewhat regulated caves from the report that you linked, would have a list of visitors that went into those caves. If those people didn't previously go to a WNS affected cave area back east, that would put a serious damper on the 'caver to bat' possible theory concerning those 2 caves.
Has this even been looked into?
The Central Oklahoma Grotto conducted a bat count, with pictures, in the Selman Cave System in February 2008 and 2009, according to their website.
Is this the same cave that is reported in the link that you posted earlier, as James Selman Cave?
Thanks,
ClaudePYoungbaer wrote:Claude,
Here's the ProMed posting on the Oklahoma bat and its testing by the NWHC lab in Madison:
http://www.promedmail.org/pls/otn/f?p=2400:1001:57555::NO::F2400_P1001_BACK_PAGE,F2400_P1001_PUB_MAIL_ID:1000,82782
As the testing has become more sophisticated, the USGS has developed a more nuanced categorization (as announced here on Cave Chat April 26:Postby PYoungbaer » Apr 26, 2010 4:30 pm
The USGS National Wildlife Health Center today posted the following revised and very detailed classification system for White Nose Syndrome detection:
http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_inform ... itions.jsp
As an example, the latest reports from Missouri and Great Smoky Mountain National Park sites are currently considered “presumptive positive” for WNS because the fungus was visible on the skin of bats and was confirmed by a molecular test (PCR), but there was no microscopic evidence of clinical fungal infection in the bats examined.
The case definitions that the NWHC uses to diagnose WNS include clinical signs associated with WNS, detection of Geomyces destructans by PCR and/or culture, and confirmation of WNS by histopathology
Similarly, a new sophistication has developed for caves and mines.
Personally, while this is probably extremely helpful to scientists, for the lay person it basically means the bats show signs, but aren't necessarily sick (yet). For the media, unfortunately, I suspect they are unlikely to convey the nuanced differences to the public of "presumptive positive" and "confirmed." Wildlife managers are already demonstrating that they treat "presumptive positive" and "confirmed" the same.
PYoungbaer wrote:Sorry, Claude - I forgot about this thread - and got lost in all the quotes and cutting and pasting.
The Oklahoma Cave is the Selmen Cave System, yes, a major hibernaculum. I don't know about the extent of visitation, and the statements by Richard Hatcher are confusing: talking about closing the cave to public access, but then saying it's not generally accessible by the public.
The Missouri Cave is clearly gated, so MDC should be able to identify visitors.
Investigations into the Environmental Transmission of
WNS to Hibernating Myotis lucifugus
ALAN C. HICKS1, JOSEPH C. OKONIEWSKI1, SCOTT R. DARLING 2,
DAVID N. REDELL3, RYAN B. SMITH2, RYAN I. VON LINDEN1, KATE E.
LANGWIG1, THOMAS INGERSOL4, JOEL FLEWELLING2, AND
CAROL U. METEYER5
1New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Albany, NY
2 Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, Rutland, VT
3 Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources, Madison, WI
4University of California at Berkley, Berkley, CA
5U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center,
Madison, WI
Project start date: October 2010
Project completion: April 2010
Addressing the white-nose syndrome (WNS) related decline in bats
requires in part, an understanding of the role played by environmental
transmission of the disease during the hibernating season. To further
that understanding , we transferred 79 Myotis lucifugus from a WNS
free mine in northern Wisconsin and released them into two WNS
positive mines in Vermont (Greely and Bridgewater), where native bats
had been excluded. Wing bands and uniquely marked data loggers or
similar masses were attached to each bat. We took elaborate
precautions to make sure that the introduced bats would not escape and
return to Wisconsin. Bats were released in each mine on October 26,
2009, and were subsequently visited on December 16, January 27,
February 18, March 18, and April 9, 2010. On each visit we recorded
the location of all bats encountered, collected dead, and severely
moribund, individuals for necropsy and photographed all animals on
roost so that we could check for visible evidence of Geomyces
destructans (G.d.) infection (the presumed causative agent of WNS).
Twenty one bats (12 of 41 at Bridgewater, 9 of 38 at Greely) were
never observed alive during these visits and presumably died from non-
WNS causes. Among the living observed on 12/16 (8 weeks postrelease),
15 of 24 (Greely) and 1 of 28 (Bridgewater) showed visible
evidence of a G.d. like infection. In Greely, all bats that had ever been
observed alive were dead by 2/18/2010. Four bats were still alive at
Bridgewater on 3/18/2010 one of which was still alive, but moribund
on 4/8/2008. We have not completed the examinations, or analysis of
data, so we cannot yet state how many mortalities can be attributed to
WNS. We discuss the likelihood of a positive finding and what it could
mean for disease management and the future of affected bat species.
[oral]
Detection of the Conidia of Geomyces destructans in
Northeast Hibernacula, at Maternal Colonies, and on
Gear – Some Findings Based on Microscopy and Culture
JOSEPH C. OKONIEWSKI1, JOHN HAINES2, ALAN C. HICKS1, KATE E.
LANGWIG1, RYAN I. VON LINDEN1, AND CHRISTOPHER A. DOBONY3
1New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Albany, NY
2New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY
3Department of Defense, Fort Drum Military Installation,
Fort Drum, NY
Geomyces destructans, the apparent causal agent of white-nose
syndrome (WNS), produces enormous numbers of conidia (asexual
spores). These conidia can be readily identified with light microscopy
and can be cultured on standard media. In the last year we have
employed these techniques to detect the presence of G. destructans in
various investigations. Using a portable Burkhard sampler which
deposits airborne particles on two-sided tape mounted on a microscope
slide, we collected air samples (0.09 m3/sample) from WNS-affected
hibernacula in New York and Vermont. To date, examination of 36
samples from six hibernacula collected during the hibernation season
has yielded a total of seven positive results from three sites. Five of the
positive samples captured only one or two conidia. The highest conidia
count (109) was collected less than 0.5 m below a small group of WNSaffected
bats. All of the 33 samples collected at six hibernacula outside
of the hibernation season have been negative. Microscopic searches of
swab samples collected from surfaces in hibernacula on which airborne
conidia are likely to be deposited have, so far, yielded mostly negative
results. In contrast, swab samples from drill-holes at one mine (where
direct contact with bats is likely) were mostly positive. Attempts to
culture G. destructans from swabs of the same surfaces failed due to
rapid growth of other fungi. Conidia can frequently be found on
decomposed bat remains in WNS-affected hibernacula, although
numbers decline rapidly with time and the growth and activity of other
organisms. Findings at necropsy suggest that a lot of conidia are
swallowed in grooming during arousal bouts. These conidia can
comprise the bulk of material in fecal pellets produced during
hibernation. Conidia from the colon have been found to be viable on
culture. The fate and importance of this concentration of conidia in
fecal material awaits investigation. We have not yet found G.
destructans growing on anything in hibernacula except live or freshly
dead bats. At maternal colonies, swabbing of bats and direct media
inoculations collectively yielded positive results in both May (3/15) and
August (3/17) at Fort Drum, and in one of four bats at a colony in the
upper Hudson Valley in June. Sampling at a colony near Lake
Champlain (July, n=21) and another in the Finger Lakes (August,
n=11) was negative. Conidia of G. destructans were observed in swab
or rinse samples of apparel and a gear used in WNS-affected
hibernacula. [oral]
cavergirl wrote:Peter, this is the same info that was posted back in May. Has there been any further information about how, exactly, the "pattern of infection was not consistent with white-nose syndrome observed on bats from the eastern U.S." ?
and if there were no "characteristic conidia observed" and if this bat was not hibernating and presumably did not have white fungus (or did it??) what prompted the graduate student to collect the bat in the first place? Hopefully people aren't going around "collecting" bats for random testing?
Return to White Nose Syndrome (WNS)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users